Stunning sequence of course, beautiful imagery, technically flawless etc... but am I alone in thinking this is waaay over the top for an opening sequence, even ignoring the way it crashed through any of the type that was on screen at the same time. I've not read any of the books, or seen (either) film - so I shouldn't even judge... but this just seemed indulgent. How does a film even start after an opening sequence like that? Better be good.

Director of Photography - who was that again? Oh, I missed it, the fists were punching through that girl's face at the time. Screenplay? Nope, that's when that giant wasp flew out of her mouth. Oh well...

I feel like I'm in a very, very small minority, but I really didn't care for them. Yes, they're stunning, they're well-executed, but I just get this mid-90s music video vibe that I can't shake. Woman-covered-in-oil just seems like such a dated idea, and it obviously being a CG head just distanced me further from it.

I thought I had just seen a music video with a girl covered in oil this last year... can't recall what video, though.

Stunning sequence of course, beautiful imagery, technically flawless etc... but am I alone in thinking this is waaay over the top for an opening sequence, even ignoring the way it crashed through any of the type that was on screen at the same time. I've not read any of the books, or seen (either) film - so I shouldn't even judge... but this just seemed indulgent.

Credits are a contractual obligation. In THIS interview, Fincher says that he had wanted to put all of the credits up front in a nine minute sequence, and then do the door-busting two and a half minute song montage. The film guilds who mandate the credits weren't having it, and Sony didn't back him up, so the credits are placed over what was originally intended as a non-credit sequence. What you get is a sequence that steals all of the attention from the credited names themselves, which by that point, I'm sure Fincher was plenty happy to do. Just shove 'em off to the side. And honestly, I'm happy never to be distracted by them.

Regarding the relevance of the imagery: should you judge, not knowing the context? Well obviously, no. And it turns out, the thematic content is all directly relevant. Fire, a phoenix, keyboards and wires, drowning, the wasp... all reference character traits, plot points, etc. But regardless, the more interesting question is whether the execution is conceptually relevant. The problem I see with the sequence is that it's all meant to be a dream-like montage of thematically abstracted images, but the execution doesn't really evoke a dreaminess, or a nightmarishness. Like, on first watching, I don't necessarily read it as metaphorical, because the images are so defined, so crisp and sometimes so CG. It might be telling that they're so stylized, but then, are they stylized in such a way as to clue you in? I just think the execution might have been a bit misdirected.

Given that you have to be familiar with the story to understand the montage, we kind of have to conclude that it's made for repeat viewing. And considering the specificity of the imagery, it really is. So, is the whole thing kind of exclusionary for a first-time audience? Yeah. Will they still like looking at it? Probably. I did. Does it get better when you know the story? Definitely. But does anyone in the audience care who the third producer is? Or the casting director? Do they need to know upfront? Not in the least.

Having read the books and seen the original Swedish films, I think Fincher directed a pitch perfect adaptation of The Girl With The Dragon Tatoo (actually surprised that they didn't overly Hollywood up the whole thing) with the glaring exception of those titles. Nothing about the tone or the style of those titles felt like it had anything to do with the film, which I think you can get away with in certain types of films but in something as grounded in reality as the Millenium trilogy just didn't work for me, felt like a well done CG wank.

Still a great film and if one thing was going to be off opening titles is not so bad, but would have been a real treat to have titles that added something to the film, especially from the director of Seven.

Having read the books and seen the original Swedish films, I think Fincher directed a pitch perfect adaptation of The Girl With The Dragon Tatoo (actually surprised that they didn't overly Hollywood up the whole thing)

Ehhh, it's always difficult when dealing with an adaptation (because one thing can be read a dozen different ways by a dozen different people), but I was surprised by how seriously Fincher seemed to take the whole thing. I mean, (massive spoilers, highlight to read), the books are about a super-hacker who grew up in solitary confinement under the watch of a mad-scientist doctor, all because her father was a Soviet super-spy (complete with an oversized henchmen who doesn't feel pain). They were pure pulp. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed them thoroughly, but I really thought the movie would have a bit more whimsy.

I really love the combo of this track & the edit done for the trailer. Completely blew me away when I saw it in the theater. Kudos to the editor, as well as & Trent & co. for doing an awesome cover of a Led Zep song!

Unfortunately, I feel the same track/edit style does not work for this title sequence, which is a shame given the beautiful & relevant imagery presented here. Not just that, but I feel the fact that they used the exact same track/edit combo used in the trailer AND the music video is...well...kind of lazy. I think they would have been much better served by using one of the many excellent moody tracks from the actual score as a basis for the edit so you have time to soak up some of those images. Great job Blur!

I loved the opening, in the cinema it was really great. Glad I hadn't seen it online beforehand.

Not knowing anything about the film when I went to see it I did think it was going to be slightly supernatural or something, so yeah, maybe a bit off subject.. still though it was extremely atmospheric and drew me in totally.

Looking back I think the story itself was a bit shit, average at least, but the whole film had something that made me really really enjoy it, can't really explain what though. Definitely better than the sum of it's parts to me, somehow.

The discussion about whether your opinion counts or not based on understanding the context of the title sequence is reminiscent of the new minimalist movie poster craze. Movie posters are supposed to advertise the movie to an audience who hasn't seen it, so cryptic symbols that summarize characters they are unfamiliar with is a communications failure. Movies are supposed to tell a story to an audience who hasn't seen it. The whole Kyle Cooper visual-insights-into-what-will-later-be-revealed-as-significant-plot-devices approach is as pointless as the minimalist poster because no one spends the movie looking for things that relate back to the title sequence. That doesn't mean that the title sequences made using this approach may still accomplish their goal of setting a tone or establishing a mood for the opening scene, but there is nothing sacred about parroting this approach.

As the warrior-poet Ice Cube once said "If the day does not require an AK, it is good"

The thing about the minimalist movie poster thing, is that all the ones I've seen have been for movies/shows that have some sort of cult following. I've never seen one for a movie that hasn't been released yet. You hit the nail on the head in that it would be a communication failure to try and sell a movie that way. Though, I still think they are fun to have around for fans of whatever movie/show they relate to.

The Dragon Tattoo titles, to me, set a mood darker than the movie ended up being. I guess having seen the title sequence before the movie came out, and having read about the process and what it means and all that ruined my ability to judge the titles in the way they were meant to be seen. The titles set a dark mood, very dark, and the movie was dark, but the titles are fucked up. people melting and multiple hands going into a womans mouth and wasps ands shit. It definitely sets a mood. The movie definitely had some shadowy content, but I didn't think any of it really lived up to the titles.

I guess when I first saw the titles I assumed they were supposed to set a mood more than they were supposed to communicate a concrete idea, so the whole thing about not knowing what some of the imagery means is moot, to me. It succeeded in making me feel something, it just so happened that the mood they made me feel was more intense than the movie itself. In that aspect I could see it being a failure. From a technical and artistic standpoint, if this was a stand alone piece, it would be a home run.

All that said, I still really enjoyed the movie and can't wait for the next 2.

You're right about the movie posters - I wish they would label them as "fan posters" or something to differentiate them from "movie posters". I guess the term "movie poster" is now somewhat analogous to the way the term "matte painting" is now warped to describe any unrealistic, overly-saturated landscape that has been tacked together in Photoshop. Too bad this usage demeans the work of so many truly talented artists.

I also agree that having so much information available before the movie comes out can ruin the cinematic experience.

As the warrior-poet Ice Cube once said "If the day does not require an AK, it is good"

The Dragon Tattoo titles, to me, set a mood darker than the movie ended up being. I guess having seen the title sequence before the movie came out, and having read about the process and what it means and all that ruined my ability to judge the titles in the way they were meant to be seen. The titles set a dark mood, very dark, and the movie was dark, but the titles are fucked up. people melting and multiple hands going into a womans mouth and wasps ands shit. It definitely sets a mood. The movie definitely had some shadowy content, but I didn't think any of it really lived up to the titles.

same experience here. jumped on mogrph to dig up this thread and post, but it was top and still alive when i popped on

for me, like ianfreeze said, i couldnt be hit with the titles fresh. but dug the movie, and that did hit me fresh because i'm a philistine when it comes to dragon tattoos apparently. people love the 2009 films and the books it seems like. the score and nice minimal feeling (who knows what the sources looked like) color correction was great for me. the titles were more a grab your ladies arm and smile type of shit, like a good bond title.

for me also, it had the characteristics of good modern art, which to me is a little assaulting and being forced to look at and sit through something, that if not totally annoying is kind of rock and roll.

it was also clean as fuck in the theatre - living overseas right now in asia, so it just came out in the last month or two.

cool that they made budget for such a tripped out piece of work, def a stand alone in a film that was kind of all about subtle realism, but i didnt hate it sort of like i dont hate dubstep even though i cant handle tons of it in my life just because its usually over the top without being douchey and badass.

just want to add after just starting to look at the making of, linked off of motionographer

i think these titles are badass and a nice contrast to the understated (relative to other hollywood thrillers maybe?) look and feel of the film. sure theres some intense shit, but the way its shot and colored almost feels indie. except for that insane title sequence. i like that it starts that way, and then gets all european and muted and live action-y

plus its dope to see this kind of conceptual non promotional shit done at nice high rez and film out'ed - just looks badass. i mean i love danny younts stuff also, but this was just some crazy cracked out macho shit that like i said above, to me, didnt get full vin diesel douche all over itself.